US Ambassador Douglas Kmiec has stirred up a hornet's nest in seeking "clarifications" on Malta's neutrality. He could not have selected a more sensitive issue in presenting his credentials to the public. Overall reactions confirm that the Maltese still care about neutrality; it is closely associated with our national identity and sovereignty. We are proud of who we are, even if, at times, it appears that we would sell our souls for economic gain.
The Ambassador proved that he is a quick learner. In his contribution to The Sunday Times (January 3) he quoted our Constitution: Malta is "a neutral state actively pursuing peace, security and social progress among all nations". This is the essence of our neutrality, the rest is form.
Modern European neutrality dates back to 1815 when, during the Congress of Vienna, the Great Powers sought to prevent small buffer states from being a cause of conflict and formalised the "neutralisation" of Switzerland. Belgium (1831) and Austria (1955) are other examples of states that were bound by treaty to remain neutral. By contrast, Sweden's neutrality is voluntary.
Malta's neutrality is more of a political statement than a legalistic one. Neutrality is about credibility and is defined by its context. Malta sought to underwrite its being "permanently neutral" by bringing together elements from various streams of "neutrality" and incorporating neutrality into our Constitution. The issue of "guarantees" by foreign powers (Italy) is a feature of "neutralisation". The proactivity of our neutrality arose out of "neutralism", which emerged out of the post-World War II decolonisation process. Newly-formed nation states like ours felt that the political, military and economic world orders were alien to their needs and interests.
These new states joined the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which not only rejected power politics (as inspired by Mahatma Gandhi) but actively sought to create a new world order. Non-aligned nations could not enter into a military alliance or serve as a military base for any superpower as this would inevitably help to maintain the existing world order. Equidistance, though desirable, was not of fundamental importance as evidenced by the membership of Yugoslavia, Cuba, Singapore and Egypt. Until it joined the EU, Malta was a member of NAM. The US, under President Barack Obama, is working towards increased multilateral diplomacy and a peaceful, disarmed world. This brings it closer to the aspirations of NAM.
Of course, there were times when the US flirted with neutrality. During the inter-war years, the Neutrality Acts were intended to safeguard its commercial interests. During World War II, it was only after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour that the US abandoned neutrality and started to treat it with suspicion and hostility. In the 1950s, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, described neutrality as "obsolete", "immoral" and "short-sighted". As President George W. Bush more recently put it "you are either with us or against us". In fairness, Ambassador Kmiec admitted that this "was a very simplistic way of knowing who the enemy was but, today, we realise this was a deeply flawed way of looking at the world" (The Times, December 5).
Since the 1980s, Malta has changed and so has the world around us. Superpowers are today gauged by economic, rather than military strength. The end of the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet bloc, the demise of ideology, globalisation, 9/11 and its aftermath have changed the world. The rise of terrorism has redefined security. Threats are more likely to originate from "non-state" organisations such as al-Qaeda and, today, include those of the economic, political, societal and environmental kind.
Global governance and the absence of adequate regulatory frameworks remain a primary challenge for the international community. The answer lies in strengthening the role of the United Nations so as to promote collective security, human rights and global solidarity. No single power has the credentials and track record to take this role upon itself. The Maltese Constitution allows that, at the request of our government, foreign forces can use local military facilities "in pursuance of measures or actions decided by the Security Council of the UN".
Neutrality has been pronounced dead on many occasions. It survives. Neutral states are increasingly playing the role of facilitators and brokers of peace. The biggest question for Malta is not the continued relevance of neutrality but the way that EU foreign and security policy will evolve. This issue is relevant to all the "neutral" EU member states (Sweden, Ireland, Finland, Austria and Malta). The biggest hurdle is faced by Austria which, technically, requires the approval of its 1955 Treaty "guarantors" to relinquish its neutrality. Let us hope that in defining the way forward in this field, the EU will give due thought to Malta's needs, a micro-state at the EU's periphery facing a predominantly Muslim hinterland.
In the meantime, Malta, within the limits of its resources, should continue to strive for an equitable world from within EU. The reference to bipolarity has become anachronistic but this is not of essence to neutrality to induce us to rush in changing our Constitution. We should wait to see how the global and EU scenarios will evolve. Unless there is a hidden agenda for Malta to join a military alliance.
fms18@onvol.net